20 5 See Adam Praeworski,‘Sccal Demnoray a Historia! Phenomenon’, Now ef Review, co, 122, 1980. Pracworsi and John Sprague’ forthcoming study of European voting patterns during the lat century underline the dilemmas frost electors strategy a8 shaped bya changing clase structure, 9. See, for example, Cornelius Castriadi, “On the History ofthe Workers! Move sent’, Telos, no, 30, Winter 1976.77, po. 3-4, 10, Teodor Shane's ‘Marx and the Peasane Commune’ (Hlutory Workhap, no. 12, ‘Autumn 1981, pp. 108-28) ia sign ofthe times. For come time Marni have bee Intetesed in peasant revolts, bu only now do we have aterious attempt to construct a ‘Marx who actully anticipated the radical potential ofthe peasantry, tothe 1960s and 1970s debates raged over the existence fan epsterologeal bres Between a Hegein Mars and a ecientfic Marx. In the 1980s debates have begvn to tage ovet Man's ‘valuation and rezvaluaton of storie change and sagen. 1. Skocpol (Stats and Social Revolution, Cambridge 1979) delbertelyenladesthe ‘working elt froma significant ole ia the Russian revhition because ws ot sental ‘othe Chinese and French revolutions The argument ests o the tenaoussesrption thal hes evolution were ema tewanc and herfoe ado eased the 12, ‘The most celebrated work here is E.P, Thompson's The Matis ofthe English ‘Working Clas (Harmondework 1968), but there snows burgeoning Kteratureon craft workers’ resistence tothe eneroachmert of capitalism (se Chapter 2 ofthis bok), 1B. The best example ofthis tendency is Hay Bravermats Latour ond benopaly (Capital (New York 1974). Thu, the contradictory perepecives ofthe working las a5 saker of history and victim of history ean be cat in evolutionary tein a wich et ‘adicaliam gives way to later quiescence. Throughout ths book, but most expii ‘Chapter ‘Two, [suggest the inadequacy of such resolution, eubuittng one that underlines the centrality of factory regime in shaping te interest and capa tes ol the ‘working clas. | | 1 The Labour Process in Capitalist Society It is one of the interesting paradoxes in the history of Marxism that Marx's analysis of the labour process, as formulated in Capital, had uuntil recently remained largely unchallenged and undeveloped, Whereas there had been debates over the reproduction schema in Volume 2.of Capital and over the falling rate of profit in Volume 3, Marxists had taken Volume 1 for granted. Harry Braverman, whose Labour and Monopoly Capital reflected and then instigated a resur- gence of interest in Marxist theories ofthe labour process, wrote: ‘The extraordinary factisthat Marvists have added litle to his body of work in this respect. Neither the changes in productive processes throughout this century of capitalism and monopoly capitalism, nor the changes in the ‘occupational structure of the working population have been subjected to any comprehensive Marxist analysis since Marx's death. .. , The answer probably begins with the extraordinary thoroughness and prescience with ‘which Marx performed his task." Indeed, Labour and Monopoly Capital is a monument tothe prophetic power of Mars’s analysis. But we should beware of Braverman's humility before Marx. We should not be deceived by his easy flow between the emergent features ‘of monopoly capitalism and the pages of Capital. Indeed, Braverman goes beyond Marx in constructing a theory of socal structure from the analysis of the capitalist labour process. His argument is clegant, simple, all-embracing, and above all convincing. He begins with the distinctive feature ofthe capitalist mode of production: that the direct producers sell to the capitalist neither themselves nor labour se but their labour power — their capacity to labour. The definitive problem of the capitalist labour process is therefore the translation of labour power into labour. This is the managerial problem of control that Braverman reduces to the alienation of the labour process from. the labourer — that is, to the separation of manual and mental 22 labour, or more precisely, using his terms, the separation of coneep- tion and execution. Around this idea Braverman weaves the ten- dencies of both the capitalist labour process and the capitalist social structure. Within the labour process itself the division of labour brought about by scientific management, and in particular Taylorism, epito- rmizes this separation of conception and execution. It is a’means through which skill and knowledge are expropriated from the direct producer and placed in the hands of management. The introduction ‘of more advanced forms of machinery, whereby science is harnessed to the labour process, both compounds and complements Taylorism in the development of the separation of conception and executio ‘Thus, the tendencies of the labour process under the guiding pri ciple of managerial control are toward the deskilling and fragments- tion of work on one hand and the creation of an apparatus of ‘concep- tion’ on the other. Following his own logic, Braverman proceeds to show that conception — the planning, coordination and control of work — is itself a labour process and is therefore subject to the same separation of conception and execution. Hence, along with the few managers and technical personnel created by the development of the intervention of science, there also appear armies of clerical workers. ‘This is one strand of his argument — the historical development of the capitalist labour process. He combines this with a second strand concerning the expansion of capital into ever new arenas of life. Thus, Braverman documents the movement of capital into service indus- tries, transforming domestic work, for example, into an arena of capitalist relations. The proliferation of such service industries is, of course, subject to the same process of separation of conception and execution, As capital conquers one sphere after another and as it is itself transformed within the spheres it has already conquered, old jobs are destroyed and new jobs created. The movement of labour, and thus the shaping and reshaping of the occupational structure, follow the laws of capital. Braverman’s analysis is exclusively from the side ofthe object. This, is no oversight; it is quite deliberate. Braverman repeatedly stresses, the mechanisms through which subjectivity is destroyed or rendered ineffectual and through which individuals lose theic individuality. In this he follows a powerful tradition within Marxism, most clearly represented by Georg Lukées in History and Glass Consciousness.” Like Lukécs, Braverman presents capitalism as a process of becoming, of realizing its own inner essence, of moving according to its immanent tendencies, of encompassing the totality, of subordinating alto itself, ‘The Labour Process in Capitalist Society 23 and of destroying all resistance. Unlike Lukées, however, Braverman does not call upon the miraculous appearance of a messianic sub- ject — the revolutionary proletariat — which, through the agency of the party, would conquer history and turn capitalism on its head. ‘Whereas at the time Lukes was writing such a vision could present itself as reality, today in the United States it would present itself as a ‘utopia, Not surprisingly, there are utopian elements in Braverman's analysis, although they do not appear in the guise of a party. Despite disclaimers, Braverman offers traces of a romantic utopianism. Iti clear, however, that a critique of Braverman cannot simply replace 2 one-sided view that emphasizes the objective aspects of ‘capitalism with an equally one-sided view emphasizing the subjective aspects. To the contrary, Braverman pushes the subject-objectframe~ ‘work as far as it will go and thereby lays bare its limitations, Thus, within the Lukes tradition, Labour and Monopoly Capital isa memor- able study. It is the work of a lifetime — the result of sifting and resifting, reading and rereading, interpreting and seinterpreting ‘Marx through a continuous dialogue with the concrete world, Not for nothing have we had to wait over a century for a comprehensive reassessment of Marx’s theory of the labour process. Its place in the Marxist tradition is secure. If I do not continually harp on Braver- ‘man's remarkable achievement, itis because 1 am trying to come to terms with it and, at the same time, wo draw upon alternative Marxisms to go beyond it. 1. Introduction In Capital Marx accomplishes the rare feat of combining an evaluation and an analysis of the operation of the capitalist mode of producti Critique and science are here two moments of the same study. They develop together and in harmony. In Labour and Monopoly Capital ‘the two moments have come unstuck. They interfere with and impede teach other’s development. In this chapter I try to show how critique cats set limits on the penetration of the working of capitalism.” In section 2, I will argue that the essence of capitalist control can be understood only through comparison with a non-capitalist mode of production. By contrast, Braverman takes his standpoint from within capitalism, alongside the craft worker — the embodiment of the tunity of conception and execution. While capitalism continually creates now skills and new craft workers,* it also systematically destroys them by taking, in Bill Haywood’s words, ‘managers’ brains’ avray from ‘under the workman’s cap.”‘The separation of hand and brsin isthe most decisive single step in the division of labour taken by the capitalist mode of production. [tisinherent in that mode of production from its beginnings, and it develops, under capitalist management, throughout the history of capital, butte only during the past century that the scale of production, the resources made available to the modern corporation by the pid accumulation of eapita, and the conceptual apparatus and trained personnel have become evailable {0 institutionalize this separation in 2 systematic and formal fashion.* However, it is not altogether clear why the separation of mental and ‘manual labour is a principle inherent in the capitalist mode of produc tion rather than one that cuts acrossallclass-divided modes of produe tion, Braverman does not penetrate the specific form of the separation of conception and execution to reach the essence of the capitalist labour process. He mystifics his analysis with unexamined assump- tions concerning ‘antagonistic socal relations’ and ‘control’, without revealing the specific meanings they assume under the capitalist nade cof produetion. So long as he insists on focusing on variations within capitalism, Braverman is prevented from arriving at the structure of the capitalist labour process and thus ofits relationship to the separa- tion of conception and execution. ‘What ‘external’ perspectives can one adopt? Braverman, itis true, develops some of his notions by reference to the animal world.” For animals the separation of conception and execution is impossible. For ‘humans, because they engage in purposive behaviour, the separation is always possible. But this sheds no light on the specificity of that ‘separation under capitalism. An alternative point of departure issome notion of a socialism, but since this is deduced for Braverman by inverting a picture of capitalism taken from within, it tells us nothing new about the capitalist labour process." Instead, T suggest taking feudalism asa point of departure. In section 3, T will examine Braverman's theoretical framework. “This isa book about the working class as a cass in itself, not a cass for itself... (There is a) self-imposed limitation to the “objective” con- tent of class and the omission of the “subjective”. . . ." Try toshow that an understanding of capitalist control cannot, almost by defini- tion, be reached without due attention to the ‘subjective’ components of work. However, the problem lies not only in the dislocation of the ‘subjective’ from the ‘objective’ but also in the very distinetion itself.” ‘The economic ‘base’ cannot be considered as defining certain ‘objec- tive’ conditions — ‘clas in itself — which are then aetivated by the ‘super-structure’ — the so-called subjective aspects — to form or not to form a'class for itself’. Rather the productive process must itself be | | ‘The Labour Process in Capitalist Sociery 25 seen as an inseparable combination of its economic, political and ideological aspects. ‘The ‘class in itslffclass for itself scheme allows Braverman to ignore all those day-to-day responses that yield the secrets of how and ‘why workers acquiesce in ‘building for themselves more “modern”, more “scientific”, more dehumanized prisons of labour’ and of ‘workers’ ‘willingness to tolerate the continuance of an arrangement so obviously destructive of the well-being and happiness of human bbeings’." Ironically, Braverman dismisses the very studies that might illuminate the nature of capitalist control and consent as the preserve of the ‘conventional stream of social science’ and assimilates them to ‘the petty manipulations of personnel departments’,!? While indus- trial sociology may conceal much, may offer at best a limited critique, and may present what exists as necessary and immutable, it nonethe- less reveals the concrete forms through which labour is ealisted in the pursuit of profit. Just as reliance on the ‘objective’ aspects of the labour process prevents Braverman from understanding the day-to-day impact of Particular forms of ‘control, and specifically Taylorism, so the same ‘one-sided perspective leads him to compound Taylorism as ideology and Taylorism as practice. The same focus alo precludes an explana- tion of the historical tendencies and variations in the labour process. Ratlver, Braverman assimilates cause and consequence in elevating = description of the tendency toward the separation of conception and execution into its explanation. In the process, he makes all sorts of assumptions about the interests of capitalists and managers, about their consciousness, and about their capacity to impose thei interests ‘on subordinate classes. In section 4, I suggest that Braverman’s conception of socialism is limited by his eritique of capitalism. His exclusive focus on the relationship between conception and execution frequently leads him to attribute to machinery and technology a neutrality they may not ‘possess and to turn romantic notions of early capitalism into restricted visions of a socialist future. Insection 5, I turn to the way Braverman links the labour process 20 the rest of society. Here, as in section 3, I note his collapsing of cause and consequence as the irresistible forces of degradation and com- modification penetrate the furthest corners of social life, This is the essence of his critique: to emphasize the domination of capital over society, rather than the problematic character of the conditions pre- supposed by that domination. Finally, in section 6, I argue that Braverman’s analysis is a product26 of a specific time and place. His work expresses the apparently un- trammelled dominance of capital in the United States — its capacity to absorb or repel alternatives, to incorporate change and criticism, and when necessary to eliminate resistance. Mistaking appearances for essence stems not only from Braverman’s expressive totality and ‘concomitant teleological view of history but also from the absence of any comparative framework that might offer some notion of alterna: tive patterns‘of development. I draw upon the work of Gramsci as an ‘example of a comparative approach that examines the limits of the possible. I then speculate on the causes of variations in the labour process, both within and between capitalist societies, In other words, st is because Labour and Monopoly Capital is so closely tied to the social and historical context in which it was produced that Braverman clings to critique all the more desperately. 2, Capitalist Control; Essence and Appearance Hf there is a single concept that has served to generate ahistorical accounts of organizations and to mystify their operation, it is the concept of control. By virtue of its use as a general concept — and by incorporating an imprecision as to whom or what is being controlled, for what ends, how, and by whom — modern social science has successfully obfuscated the working of capitalism.” Despite his inn Portant efforts to specify its meaning, Braverman’s use ofthe term is ‘ot without ts flaws and unstated assumptions. He too fails to come to terms with the specificity of capitalist control over the labour pro- ‘cess — that is, the manner in which the eapacity to labour is trans- lated into the expenditure of labour, or the translation of labour power into labour. Control and Interests Braverman derives his nation of control from the destruction of crafts. ‘The ‘degradation of work’ through expropriation of skill and know. ledge refers to what changes rather than to what is constant under capitalism, to the varieties of organization of work rather than to the underlying structure thet identifies the labour process as a labour process in capitalist society. One can approach the latter only by ‘comparing the capitalist mode of production to a non-capitalist mode of production. But firet let us specify the problem: why is control necessary at all? Braverman argues as follows. [n the early period of capitalism, when ‘The Labour Process in Capitalist Society 27 nutting out and subcontracting still prevailed, the entrepreneur's task tran to climinate uncertainty ovr the amount and method of work Labourers were therefore brought together under a single roof and paid a daily wage for their ‘labour power’. But in reducing one form of luncertainty a new form was created: the uncertainty inthe realization of labour power in the form of labour. This new problem inaugurated capitalist management. ‘When he (the capitalist) buys labour time, the outcome is far from being either so certain or so definite that it can be reckoned in thia way, with precision and in advance, ‘Thi is merely an expression ofthe fact thatthe portion of his capital expended on labour powter is the ‘variable’ portion, Which undergoes an increase in the process of productions for him the {question is how great that increase will be. It thus becomes ezential for the capitalist that control over the labour process pass from the hands of the worker into his own. This transition presents itself in history as the progressive alienation of the proces of production from the worker; 10 the ‘capitalist, it presents itself asthe problem of management, ‘The task of management has been to reduce or eliminate the uncer: tainty in the expenditure of labour while atthe same time ensuring the production of profit. But why the need to reduce uncertainty? Why can labour not be left tots own deviees? Why must tbe reduced toa machine? In short, why is control necessary? The answer, of course, lies in the presumption that capitalist social relations are ‘antago nisti’."* But what are these antagonistic relations? More specifically, what is antagonistic about them? And what is specifically capitalist? Braverman does not provide complete answers to these questions. Let us begin with the issue of the opposition of the objective interests of labour and capital. “The labour process has become the esponsibility of the capitalist. In this setting of antagonistic relations of production, the problem of realizing the “full usefulness” of the labour power he has bought becomes exacerbated by the opposing interests of those for whose purposes the labour process is carried on, and those who, on the other side, carry it on. But why the opposed interests? There are many passages in the works of Marx where he declares or presumes a fundamental oppos tion of interests between labour and capital. Moreover, Marx implies that this antagonism will become increasingly transparent over time. ‘The material basis for the opposition of interests lis inthe increase of unpaid labour relative to paid labour, of surplus labour to necessary labour. This isa tendency inscribed in the capitalist mode of produc- tion, In short, the economic relationship of capital co labour is zer0-